Was the New 52 an objective mistake in regards to Superman?

[kjn]

As for Superman.....I said in a few posts above that the "Clark is who I am" mindset of 86 was, maybe, objectively wrong. But giving it a little thought I dont think I can say that. Superman's character was on a pendulum swing; in the Silver Age the only "real" persona was Superman and "Clark" was just a disguise with damn little depth to him. Then when we started to get into the news caster era, Clark started to become more important and more developed, and started having a personality of "his" own. So Byrne taking that trajectory and just swinging it to the furthest extreme where "Superman" was purely a disguise.......it's just following the momentum, right? I still think it was the wrong move, I still think it goes against what Superman is supposed to be (a fusion of god and man, not one over the other) and like Sacred said DC has spent much of the last thirty years trying to put things we lost in 86 back in place, but "objectively" probably is too strong a word.

I think that pendulum move is rather intrinsic for Superman, due to the way the character has been constructed. He is adopted, and both essentially American and essentially alien at the same time. That dual nature is, I'd argue, the most interesting thing about him. A specific writer or a specific story can of course focus on one or the other, but I think Tom King was really into something in Heroes in Crisis #2, when Clark is halfway in his transformation to Superman and talking to Sanctuary:

"But if I adjusted each to be further away from me, then which one was I? Or was I neither? Is Clark Superman trying to be flawed? Or is Superman Clark trying to be better?"

[Ascended]

I think that pendulum move is rather intrinsic for Superman

The duality is most assuredly a core aspect of the character. As Yang said, the essence of Superman is in the tension between "Clark" and "Superman." He's not a SUPERman or a superMAN, he's both; the SUPERMAN.

And a story can indeed focus on one element over others. But I think when you say "this side of Kal-El is the dominant side, and the other one is a disguise" you're getting it very, very wrong. That stopped being the case many decades ago now. Byrne did do that though, and because he was the foundation of the post-Crisis Superman it took years to completely undo it and bring the balance back.

[rpmaluki]

There must absolutely be a balance of the two. He is both Superman and Clark end of story.

[manofsteel1979]

I have been critical of the New 52 and some of the stuff they did during it, and I'm not going to say I don't prefer the Rebirth era and the current Bendis era as a whole compared to the entire duration of the New 52. Overall I just feel we are getting better and more consistent stories now compared to the hit and miss nature of what came immediately before.

Having said that, I don't think it was a mistake on principle to clear the decks and go at the character with a new angle and direction, because let's face it, Superman was in pretty rough shape by that time. Heck the DCU on a whole was in a rough shape.Something needed to happen. So a ground up reboot wasn't necessarily the wrong thing to do. The problem is that it wasn't executed properly and it was unclear what the company wanted it to be, especially with Superman. It became quickly clear that there was no plan in place, especially once Morrison left Action Comics. The characterization was all over the place, it was one event or crossover one after another with very little world building or hard character work and when they started to do just that with Pak's run, Truth came along and upended all of it.

All in all though overall im still grateful for it. We got Grant Morrison writing 19 issues of a Superman book! We got Greg Pak's runs of Batman/Superman and Action . For that alone I'm grateful it happened. Plus if not for the New 52, I doubt we would have gotten the whole Rebirth era and Bendis current run.it gave the character a clean break from the morass of the New Krypton saga/Grounded/Reign of Doomsdays quagmire. We got back the PreFlashpoint Superman without him having to be saddled with that baggage.

[Kuwagaton]

Yeah, objective gets thrown around far too easily.

Agreed.

Vlad, I thank you for taking the time to make such a detailed analysis. But as you elaborate, you first of all can't really discuss the financial aspect while removing comment on what drives the finances, consumer interest. How much what we're given alligns to our personal preference. And that means second of all "objective" ends up not being all that significant. A reboot that employs popular creators is a refresher that will swell sales and the potential for fall out is not an inherent risk to that reward. The risk is a completely different thing when you don't have creators fizzle out prematurely. Yes Morrison and Perez (or Byrne) would have lost readers, but that's the industry now, where issue 20 just won't pull an issue #1 ranking to say the least. Things went haywire, but that's not inherent.

To me the historical exceptions are back before he had real competition and the weak sales before For Tomorrow. For the most part, Superman sales are simply what you expect. Middle of the road but consistently ahead of lesser titles, able to spike with special guest creators but consistently stuck behind whatever is new. It was that sort of business as usual with the New 52, with the logical choice of a clever, popular writer on one side and a careful, thoughtful veteran with a grasp on both the Superman main line and DC reboots in general. Those sales wouldn't have been great forever, but they were almost guaranteed to be greater than the era before Flashpoint so it was an objectively good choice. Treating a superstar creator like a superstar isn't objectively unwise, but to the extent of letting Morrison run on without regard for how things had been done successfully in the past is not good. Ignoring Perez and not having commitment to earnestly rebuild the franchise stifled at the highest point of momentum.

[Scott Taylor]

Most of the New 52 changes I saw as window dressing. They didn't put me off on the comics because they didn't alter the character or the way a Superman comic should feel. Really the New 52 era gets a lot of flack but it took very few risks.

[JAK]

Rebirth, by contrast, has been much more cohesive, despite the entire premise being "history is broken so everything and nothing are in continuity at the same time!" Rebirth has still had its problems, just like DC did after the original sin of COIE, but compared to the New52 it's been a much smoother execution.

As for Superman.....I said in a few posts above that the "Clark is who I am" mindset of 86 was, maybe, objectively wrong. But giving it a little thought I dont think I can say that. Superman's character was on a pendulum swing; in the Silver Age the only "real" persona was Superman and "Clark" was just a disguise with damn little depth to him. Then when we started to get into the news caster era, Clark started to become more important and more developed, and started having a personality of "his" own. So Byrne taking that trajectory and just swinging it to the furthest extreme where "Superman" was purely a disguise.......it's just following the momentum, right? I still think it was the wrong move, I still think it goes against what Superman is supposed to be (a fusion of god and man, not one over the other) and like Sacred said DC has spent much of the last thirty years trying to put things we lost in 86 back in place, but "objectively" probably is too strong a word.

Yep - it's all down to execution. As for "Clark is who I am," I think it would have been an objective mistake if that had fully stuck. But after Byrne left and Superman did some space soul-searching, we started to see that mentality change. So if we look at it from a starting point for the character rather than a final defining character trait, I think it works - especially considering how all that Krypton knowledge was put into his brain in the story. It'd take awhile to fully process it, and might not seem "real" at first.

I have been critical of the New 52 and some of the stuff they did during it, and I'm not going to say I don't prefer the Rebirth era and the current Bendis era as a whole compared to the entire duration of the New 52. Overall I just feel we are getting better and more consistent stories now compared to the hit and miss nature of what came immediately before.

Having said that, I don't think it was a mistake on principle to clear the decks and go at the character with a new angle and direction, because let's face it, Superman was in pretty rough shape by that time. Heck the DCU on a whole was in a rough shape.Something needed to happen. So a ground up reboot wasn't necessarily the wrong thing to do. The problem is that it wasn't executed properly and it was unclear what the company wanted it to be, especially with Superman. It became quickly clear that there was no plan in place, especially once Morrison left Action Comics. The characterization was all over the place, it was one event or crossover one after another with very little world building or hard character work and when they started to do just that with Pak's run, Truth came along and upended all of it.

All in all though overall im still grateful for it. We got Grant Morrison writing 19 issues of a Superman book! We got Greg Pak's runs of Batman/Superman and Action . For that alone I'm grateful it happened. Plus if not for the New 52, I doubt we would have gotten the whole Rebirth era and Bendis current run.it gave the character a clean break from the morass of the New Krypton saga/Grounded/Reign of Doomsdays quagmire. We got back the PreFlashpoint Superman without him having to be saddled with that baggage.

All-in-all, I'm thankful for the New52 in a surprising way. For YEARS, fans have had to put up with jabs about Superman's "underwear outside his pants", etc. So New52 and MoS happen... and look! Trunks are back, and we don't have those stupid jokes anymore. As I said before, they've been "New Coke'd" LOL... and if it took taking those things away and advertising the changes in a weird "pseudo-edgy" way to show people what they were missing, I'm good with it.

And that first Morrison story. That was pretty awesome.

[Vordan]

I liked Morrison’s Action Comics run and pretty much only that. Morrison gave us a Superman that had access to his entire history like how Batman has had for a long time. The New 52 Superman was explicitly flawed and very human, which addressed people’s complaints that Supes is too perfect and boring. And it addressed that simply by returning to the original Siegel and Shuster characterization, which is what DC always should have done. That Morrison’s successors were unable to capitalize on what he set up is their own fault. He does perhaps deserve some of the blame for what happened with Perez, assuming he could’ve done a better job at keeping Perez in the loop.

It wasn’t a financial flop at all, that’s an ignorant claim by people who dislike the New 52. It was actually initially a huge financial success. DC was simply too inept to actually capitalize on that success, and instead ran it into the ground with terrible creative and editorial decisions. Rebirth did not fare much better financially in the long run, it’s main success was earning DC back public goodwill.

People forget just how bad Superman Comics pre-Flashpoint were. We got a terrible crossover with Doomsday and Hank Henshaw (two utterly boring characters) for Supes finale. Before that we had the terrible Grounded storyline, and the collapse of the New Krypton story as well. The only bright spot was Cornell’s The Black Ring saga with Lex Luthor. New 52 revitalized the franchise at least initially.

[SiegePerilous02]

Considering the dire straits Superman and the company at large were in prior to the reboot, I can't say doing a reboot and having a clean slate wasn't a sound idea, just as doing something similarly drastic with COIE seemed like a good idea at the time. As usual with DC, it's down to the poor execution. They didn't do a clean, complete reboot across the line, there was little editorial direction, and creators were treated poorly in many cases.

That being said, Morrison's run was the best the character had had in a great long while, and (IMO) is still the best one we've had up until now, even if I like some of the things Bendis is doing and hope it has promise. So I like the New 52 era if only for that, even if I greatly dislike things like the Jim Lee costume, the Clark/Diana romance and the marginalization of Lois. I would have preferred a more natural way of bringing some pre-Flashpoint things back. I still believe all that was needed was a costume change, Clark and Diana breaking up and him getting back with Lois and then a small timeskip to show them as married again and Lois pregnant.

A reboot is going to disrupt things, but if Superman's popularity hadn't been completely killed by prior reboots and abysmal periods that he's already gone through, I don't think adding the New 52 period will do any long term damage. It had some great things, and some terrible things. When the writing was point, he very much had everything that made a classic Superman work.

Byrne's Superman is perfectly fine. It's the one that we keep coming back to above all others while everything else has it's time then steps aside.

Yes it does, as that's the one most of this generation have grown up on and are familiar with, and we're still pretty young

I don't know, they seem to be more aligned with Johns' Secret Origin than with Byrne. Lex being an evil businessman and Lana being in on the secret seem to be the major things that stick, but the presence of the Phantom Zone Criminals, Kara, Kandor and the Legion all indicate that Byrne isn't the one they keep coming back to.

If it was popular enough it would be sensible for DC to circle back around to it. But...IDK, I really wish they wouldn't. I wasn't born until a few years after MOS, but I grew up with the era of Superman it ushered in. Not with comics, but I caught Lois and Clark when my parents watched it and watched S:TAS when it came out, and it drew a lot of inspiration from the current comics of the time. I liked Superman okay, but I also always considered him and his world kind of boring compared to the likes of Batman, Spider-Man and the X-Men. But then I read All Star and Moore's stories, and he quickly became one of my favorites, and I appreciated the older stuff more. I'd be overjoyed if they just let the Byrne influence die aside from the odd thing like Maggie Sawyer and Cat Grant (his only good additions to the mythos IMO) and Lana knowing the secret. The older stuff is what I like about Superman, and using it as a foundation wouldn't preclude things like the marriage or a kid.

[Truman Burbank]

Really? I think everyone is being pretty damn civil. Except for Miles of course, because he dared disagreed with me! >shakes fist in faux anger!<

Just playin' Miles, in case that wasn't clear.

I agree it's civil, I'm just one who isn't fond of how quick the forum often is to put down post-Crisis, even in jest.

The entire reboot seemed to suffer from being rushed. No one seemed to know what anyone else was doing. I'm sure we've all heard the reports about WB demanding a quick turn around in revenue, and that seems to be largely responsible for the haphazard execution and communication between editors and creators, as well as the heavy handed editorial mandates that drove so many writers and artists away.

Rebirth, by contrast, has been much more cohesive, despite the entire premise being "history is broken so everything and nothing are in continuity at the same time!" Rebirth has still had its problems, just like DC did after the original sin of COIE, but compared to the New52 it's been a much smoother execution.

As for Superman.....I said in a few posts above that the "Clark is who I am" mindset of 86 was, maybe, objectively wrong. But giving it a little thought I dont think I can say that. Superman's character was on a pendulum swing; in the Silver Age the only "real" persona was Superman and "Clark" was just a disguise with damn little depth to him. Then when we started to get into the news caster era, Clark started to become more important and more developed, and started having a personality of "his" own. So Byrne taking that trajectory and just swinging it to the furthest extreme where "Superman" was purely a disguise.......it's just following the momentum, right? I still think it was the wrong move, I still think it goes against what Superman is supposed to be (a fusion of god and man, not one over the other) and like Sacred said DC has spent much of the last thirty years trying to put things we lost in 86 back in place, but "objectively" probably is too strong a word.

I think Rebirth has lost a lot of steam with the staff changes at DC, and I'll probably always wonder how the whole initiative would have turned out had Johns remained in control through its conclusion. But story elements aside, I think it showed how much planning didn't go into New 52.

With story elements, I agree the character works best as a balance. One side being the "true self" and the other being a complete disguise is a disservice to both. But I took "Clark is who I am" differently - as more of a statement that Superman would be the same person even without powers, and that his convictions are not defined by his abilities. I think writers who followed Byrne did a much better job of refining that concept and more clearly portraying it.

[Rakzo]

Well, Morrison's run was blatantly dull as a whole with only few issues that saved it from being completely forgettable so... I guess?

I mean, is difficult to say. I think that New 52 Superman was a total waste of potential overall. Morrison tried, and the key word is "tried", to make Superman modern and relevant for a new age but at the same time he created a story that suffered from serious pacing issues and the fact that there were long delays at the time only made matters worse. Lobdell had a lot of fun ideas but editorial and his own execution always got in the way. Pak probably had the best characterization for this version of Clark but, once again, editorial ruined his good will.

Considering that Morrison had the most freedom of the New 52 Superman writers, is a shame that his run didn't turn out better. It was a failed experiment.

[Yoda]

I just remember being really excited after reading Action Comics #1. Then reading Superman #1 and being like wtf is this? I get Perez had experience with a big relaunch with Wonder Woman in 1986, but what had he done in the last 10 years that warranted turning over the relaunch? I dropped Superman after the first arc. Action after Morrison (though really I think his first arc in that title carries weak later 2/3's). I checked back in periodically, but was never impressed. It just always seemed like one mess after the other. I wonder if Morrison was given both books like Bendis if things would have turned out better. The foundation for the present stories laid out by Perez and then Lobell was just too poor to sustain things.

And the treatment of Lois in the New 52 was just terrible. She's co-starred in every single successful adaptation of the franchise. I'd like to hear anyone argue that her treatment in the New 52, beyond maybe Unchained, was not objectively bad. I get if she's not a necessary element of a Superman story for you, but she was one of the most mishandled characters in the New 52.

And financially, overall I don't think it was a success outside of the comics. Short term definitely. But there are a lot of reports floating around about the losses on the marketing side after the New 52 redesigns that led to some of the push back to the classic designs. And Didio is pretty candid about how they knew they needed the course correction towards Rebirth when they were going to cons and there was very little fan engagement. They were putting out a product no one was interested in talking about.

[Darkcrusade25]

Morrison's run, as well as Geoff's arc with the character made me love the character of Superman and that version of New 52 Supes will always hold the #1 spot as my second and favorite exposure to the character.

[HeroVladimir93]

Agreed.

Vlad, I thank you for taking the time to make such a detailed analysis. But as you elaborate, you first of all can't really discuss the financial aspect while removing comment on what drives the finances, consumer interest. How much what we're given alligns to our personal preference. And that means second of all "objective" ends up not being all that significant. A reboot that employs popular creators is a refresher that will swell sales and the potential for fall out is not an inherent risk to that reward. The risk is a completely different thing when you don't have creators fizzle out prematurely. Yes Morrison and Perez (or Byrne) would have lost readers, but that's the industry now, where issue 20 just won't pull an issue #1 ranking to say the least. Things went haywire, but that's not inherent.

To me the historical exceptions are back before he had real competition and the weak sales before For Tomorrow. For the most part, Superman sales are simply what you expect. Middle of the road but consistently ahead of lesser titles, able to spike with special guest creators but consistently stuck behind whatever is new. It was that sort of business as usual with the New 52, with the logical choice of a clever, popular writer on one side and a careful, thoughtful veteran with a grasp on both the Superman main line and DC reboots in general. Those sales wouldn't have been great forever, but they were almost guaranteed to be greater than the era before Flashpoint so it was an objectively good choice. Treating a superstar creator like a superstar isn't objectively unwise, but to the extent of letting Morrison run on without regard for how things had been done successfully in the past is not good. Ignoring Perez and not having commitment to earnestly rebuild the franchise stifled at the highest point of momentum.

I admit there is still much about the comic book industry that I don't understand. At least, that explanation justifies the marketing push DC did in favor of Brian Michael Bendis. Maybe in the future, I'll look back on the New 52 with fonder eyes, but for now, I'd rather look forward instead of looking back.

I liked Morrison’s Action Comics run and pretty much only that. Morrison gave us a Superman that had access to his entire history like how Batman has had for a long time. The New 52 Superman was explicitly flawed and very human, which addressed people’s complaints that Supes is too perfect and boring. And it addressed that simply by returning to the original Siegel and Shuster characterization, which is what DC always should have done. That Morrison’s successors were unable to capitalize on what he set up is their own fault. He does perhaps deserve some of the blame for what happened with Perez, assuming he could’ve done a better job at keeping Perez in the loop.

It wasn’t a financial flop at all, that’s an ignorant claim by people who dislike the New 52. It was actually initially a huge financial success. DC was simply too inept to actually capitalize on that success, and instead ran it into the ground with terrible creative and editorial decisions. Rebirth did not fare much better financially in the long run, it’s main success was earning DC back public goodwill.

People forget just how bad Superman Comics pre-Flashpoint were. We got a terrible crossover with Doomsday and Hank Henshaw (two utterly boring characters) for Supes finale. Before that we had the terrible Grounded storyline, and the collapse of the New Krypton story as well. The only bright spot was Cornell’s The Black Ring saga with Lex Luthor. New 52 revitalized the franchise at least initially.

I'm gonna have to disagree with some of those pre-Flashpoint comics, as I certainly loved Grounded and Reign of Doomsdays; but considering the large amount of pre-Flashpoint content, there is bound to be some truly awful and lore-breaking stories out there. There were benefits to the New 52, I won't deny that, but I personally disagreed with some of the creative decisions made during that era. I'm just glad Rebirth gave Superman a stronger sense of purpose and direction and a support network, both of which he lacked during the New 52.

[Ascended]

Yep - it's all down to execution. As for "Clark is who I am," I think it would have been an objective mistake if that had fully stuck. But after Byrne left and Superman did some space soul-searching, we started to see that mentality change. So if we look at it from a starting point for the character rather than a final defining character trait, I think it works - especially considering how all that Krypton knowledge was put into his brain in the story. It'd take awhile to fully process it, and might not seem "real" at first.

As a "starting point" I suppose it's acceptable......but that's leaning heavily on the idea that Clark is just a regular ol' guy, exactly like you or me, without his powers. And I have never found that to be terribly interesting. I dont even think it conforms with the nature of the mythos, even in broad strokes.

But as a starting point I suppose I could accept it (I did during the excellent triangle era, after all), as long as we're not actually *in* the starting point anymore.

And that first Morrison story. That was pretty awesome.

That first arc is going to remain one of my favorite Superman stories ever. Just a fabulous vision of the Golden Age put into contemporary form. F*cking amazing.

Oh! Off topic, have you finished your Rath or Aqualad gear on DCUO yet? I got what I wanted, but haven't finished the styles. They're doing a bonus currency weekend starting tomorrow, I might try to finish it all up then if I can get away from finals.

I agree it's civil, I'm just one who isn't fond of how quick the forum often is to put down post-Crisis, even in jest.

Ah, then you have my apologies, because I rip on post-Crisis often. Usually in jest, but not always. But I hope I never come across as demeaning the enjoyment others get from it. If you like that era (and there is plenty to like) cool. Im glad you do. Dont let my bitching about those years be taken for me accusing anyone of liking the "wrong" thing or whatever.

With story elements, I agree the character works best as a balance. One side being the "true self" and the other being a complete disguise is a disservice to both. But I took "Clark is who I am" differently - as more of a statement that Superman would be the same person even without powers, and that his convictions are not defined by his abilities. I think writers who followed Byrne did a much better job of refining that concept and more clearly portraying it.

That's a nice way of looking at the characterization. Im not sure if Ive ever seen anyone spin it like that before. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying; the powers dont make the Superman. But with everything else Byrne did, such as Clark brushing off his homeworld as a "curious memento" I can't get behind your interpretation. I like it, but I cannot believe that this is what Byrne meant. Im sure he meant exactly that; Superman was a costume, nothing more. There was no duality; there was just a guy from a farm who happened to be an alien with powers and wore a cape for reasons.